All,
The time has gotten away from me. I have to leave for the airport. I am
taking my daughter to London & need to get us all packed & out of the house.
I will write respond to all at length either from the airport or in London.
Rich, so sorry about your health issues. My best wishes for a full and
complete recovery.
Nalini
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
>
> - I am happy to set up an informal session where all can meet and talk
> quietly. Not everyone will be there on Sunday but maybe Monday breakfast
> or during a break? Just let me know if you are interested & we can make
> intros.
>
>
>
> I won’t be there (health issues), but I’ve already turned down such
> private invites before.
>
>
>
> Standing up in front of a WG and talking about unpopular topics is hard.
> As Richard said, kudo’s to USBank (and a BCBS org) for doing so. But if
> you’re not willing to do the hard work, then you don’t get to have the IETF
> address your concerns.
>
>
>
> I remember saying before that I firmly believe that the main, and
> unstated, reason for wanting an IETF RFC on this is so that would-be
> customers can point to vendors and ask for a common solution at a lower
> price because the ability is now commoditized. With all due respect to the
> people involved, I believe that is still the case.
>
>
>
> I have heard concerns that it is necessary to have a “speedy” solution.
> Again, I strongly disagree with this. The standard organizations haven’t
> even made TLS 1.0 illegal yet, as I said last time. What makes you think
> that something is needed in under five years? I asked that question
> before, too.
>
>
>
>
>
--
Thanks,
Nalini Elkins
President
Enterprise Data Center Operators
www.e-dco.com